WP/26931/2006 of Velugubantla SuryavathiW/o. Gopala Krishna Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District, on 27 December 2006

ORDER:

The two petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging thenotification issued by the second respondent under Section 4(1) of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) proposing to acquireland admeasuring Acs.3.11 in survey No.95/2B3B situated atGurajanapalli, Hamlet of Uppalanka Village of Karapa Mandal in EastGodavari District (hereafter referred to as, the subject property).

The petitioners are joint owners of the subject property. Theyallege that the land is sought to be acquired for providing house sitesto weaker sections under Integrated Novel Development In Rural AndModel Municipal Areas (INDIRAMMA). They allege that they dugprawn tanks and personally operating the same and though there areadequate lands in the village, respondents issued the impugnednotification due to political influence. A contention is also raised thatthe notification issued by the first respondent is without jurisdiction andconferring powers on the second respondent to discharge the dutiesunder Section 4(2) of the Act is illegal and arbitrary.

A perusal of the impugned notification would show that thenotification is issued by the District Collector. Under the present legaldispensation, it is competent for the District Collector to issuenotification to acquire the land for providing house sites. There cannotbe any objection on this. Secondly under subsection (2) of Section 4of the Act, it is always competent for the Land Acquiring Authority todesignate any Officer of the Revenue Department to discharge thefunctions under Section 4(2) of the Act. Be it noted that under Section4(2) of the Act, the Officer authorized can enter upon the land for thepurpose of conducting survey and taking levels of land and conductingsoil test. Conferring power on the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kakinada – second respondent herein; does not in any manner defeatthe rights of the petitioners. Further though the RDO is authorized toconduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, which has not dispensedwith, the same is valid. The only requirement is that after conductingenquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the RDO has to submit a report tothe District Collector, who will then take appropriate decision beforeissuing/not issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Thisaspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Penmetsa Venkata Satya Appala Visweswara Durga Satya SubrahmanyaVarma v The Secretary to Government of A.P.[[1]]wherein it washeld as follows.

A plain reading of the above would show that all theobjections made under subsection (1) of Section 5-A of theAct shall be made to the Collector in writing. After receivingthe objections, the Collector shall have to give the objector anopportunity of being heard, conduct enquiry as he thinksnecessary and then submit a report to the Government for adecision. Therefore, the RDO or any Revenue Officerexercising powers of Collector as per Section 3(c) or Section3-A of the Act is only given power to make or submit a reportto such Authority, who issued notification under Section 4(1)of the Act. There is no dispute that the Collector is exercisingthe powers of the Government as delegated under Section 3-A of the Act and, therefore, if one reads the Collector in theplace of “appropriate Government” appearing in subsection(2) of Section 5-A of the Act and reads the RDO for“Collector”, it becomes abundantly clear that the RDO cannotreject the objections raised by the owners. The limited powergiven to the RDO under Section 5-A of the Act is to submit areport to the District Collector, who is alone competent to takea decision, which shall be final.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, this Court holds that this writ petition ismisconceived and liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all theirobjections before the second respondent in the enquiry under Section5-A of the Act.

The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordinglydismissed. No costs.

_____________

December 27, 2006. (V.V.S.RAO,J)

YS

[1]W.P.Nos.20360 of 2006 and batch, dated 29.9.2006